On Fri Feb 22 19:38:42 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Friday 22 February 2008 19:33:12 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> 
> > Alas!  It is once again failing as of r25999.
> 
> Did it work at r25997?  I think Andy keeps reverting the fix.
> 

I should have spoken more precisely.  The revision at which I *noticed*
the failure was 25998.  I've begun a binary search to determine at which
revision the failure actually occurred again.

The test passed at 25900.

kid51

Reply via email to